The home networking field has been increasing in popularity the last few years. The “digital home,” as referred to by industry insiders, will supposedly enable consumers to network and interface various types of appliances and devices throughout the home. For example, it is believed that the network will allow linking of such home appliances as alarm clocks, stereo equipment, televisions and kitchen appliances. For example, after an alarm clock has sounded and the network detects activity in the bathroom in the morning, then the network can alert the coffee maker in the kitchen to begin preparation of a pot of coffee. Or, the bathroom scale can be continually monitored and provide input data upon each weighing to exercise software on a home computer linked to home exercise equipment.
Manufacturers from a wide variety of industries have been developing “networked” products to meet this emerging market. Due to lack of industry standards, manufacturers have engaged in developing their own proprietary network protocols and hardware in order to connect devices. As a response to the network incompatibility issue, some industry groups have been formed in order to create “standards” so that manufacturers following these standards are able to create compatible devices adhering to a specific protocol in software and hardware.
Groups such as WI-FI, which adhere to the 802.11×IEEE standards, are producing products today to allow fast connection between computer and multi-media systems. This particular standard is designed for transferring a large amount of data across a wireless network. Other groups such as the “Powerline” group have developed fast data transfer networks using the existing home electrical wiring. Yet other groups have formed standards such as HomeRF.
When fast data rates are required, the aforementioned standards work very well. However, in cases where simple control signals such as “on\off” and status are required, a fast data network becomes “overkill” for these simple applications. Manufacturers requiring a simpler type of network for control applications have developed standards such as “Zigbee” and “Z-wave” in an effort to keep their overall systems price competitive. These “control” networks add yet another level of complexity to the home integrator whose job is to make all of these systems work together seamlessly. In addition, different standards are being developed which presumably link the internet and cell phone communications systems with the home network. It is also believed that the home network may be extended into devices maintained in the garage or barriers that are accessible by the operator controlling the barrier, but the communication standards utilized by the garage door operator and the home network are not at all compatible. Since the goal of the home network is to connect all devices together and to offer consumers easy-to-use interfaces, it is necessary to develop interfaces capable of “bridging” devices utilizing incompatible communication protocols.
One example of a home network system is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,481,013 to Dinwiddie, et al. This patent discloses an apparatus for distributing radio frequency (RF) modulated broadcast television signals from a broadcast signal source to networked appliances connected to the source through a plurality of single conductor coaxial cables, simultaneously with distributing un-modulated digital signals and RF modulated video signals exchanged between the networked appliances over the same network coaxial cables. The apparatus provides bi-directional signal transmission over a single conductor coaxial cable and a network capable of conducting simultaneous bi-directional signal transmission of un-modulated digital signals, and radio frequency (RF) modulated signals over a single conductor coaxial cable. The apparatus also provides a network capable of providing bi-directional signal transmission of broadband, baseband and infrared signals over a single conductor coaxial cable. And the apparatus provides bi-directional transmission of high bandwidth broadband signals over a low bandwidth single conductor coaxial cable.
Another example of an interface device is provided by U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,160 to Hochbrueckner which discloses an electronic control for a grill, providing enhanced functionality and safety features. One of the features is a hydrocarbon detector system that provides an intermittently operated electro-optic device emitting photons at a wavelength which selectively interacts with hydrocarbon as compared to air, associated with a detector for detecting the selective interaction and an alarm monitor for detecting an alarm state. Another feature is a food temperature sensor that is employed to proportionately control combustible fuel flow rate, and thereby control a food temperature profile. Still another feature is a communications network interface is provided to allow remote control and monitoring. In one embodiment, the electronic systems include a networking device, for example a TCP/IP based communications interface, for communicating with other devices in the environment, or remotely. For example, the microprocessor may include a so-called embedded “web server” to communicate sensed conditions and to respond to received commands or requests for information. Of course, the controller need not itself implement these protocols, and may communicate with a translation or bridge device using another protocol. Therefore, the device may be integrated with other domestic electronics systems and communicate therewith. Various known physical link layers may be employed, such as 10 Base T, 10 Base 2, phone-line networking, AC power line networking, RF communications (e.g., 24 MHz, 49 MHz, 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz), infrared communications (e.g., IRdA), acoustic communications, or the like. In order to reduce power consumption, a wireless communication system preferably provides at least two modes of operation, an active mode wherein the communications latencies are short, and a low power mode wherein the communications are shut down or operated with long latencies. The system may switch between modes automatically or on external command.
Although the aforementioned devices are effective in their stated purpose, they do not address the incompatibility of different non-network components. In other words, there is a need in the art for a device that facilitates communication between remote transmitters or transmitters that control the operation of the movable barrier, or the like, with the appliances controlled by a home network.